Home Page --
Products --
Order Now --
Download Issue --
Contact Us
SPECIALTY LAW - Minnesota Family Law
Minnesota family law cases
Updated through September 10, 2005
The Main File, containing the full text of over 4,660 Minnesota family law cases dating back to 1941, is available on CD-ROM. Case coverage includes such toptics as divorce, bigamy, spoual abuse, dissolution, child support and visitation, spousal maintenance, alimony, child neglect and dependency, adoption and parental rights. The database features full word-phrase search capabilities, no on-line charges, monthly internet updates, retrieval of cases by title or citation, network capability, a separate file of recent cases and the ability to print individual cases or save them to a word processing file. Recent cases contained in the Supplemental File are available on this web site. See below for Case Summaries. Full-text of cases is available only to subscribers.
For full-text coverage of Minnesota family law for the last 57 years
Order Specialty Law CD-ROM for only $115
Minnesota Family Law Case Summaries
Click on data range to see summaries for those dates
Minnesota Family Law Case Summaries
July 31 - September 10, 2005
Click on case name to access full text
Published
Tarlan v. Sorensen, No. A04-2257 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her motion to compel respondent to re-establish their children's residence in Minnesota and to enroll the parties' daughter in counseling. Appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) failing to enforce its amended judgment relating to the children's residency and (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing relating to appellant's request that the parties' daughter attend counseling sessions and that respondent refrain from monitoring their daughter's weight. Because the district court did not misconstrue its judgment relating to the children's residency, we affirm the denial of appellant's motion to compel respondent to re-establish the children's residency in Minnesota. But because appellant alleged facts that, if true, rise to a level of emotional endangerment and could impair the emotional development of the parties' daughter, the district court erred by failing to hold a hearing under Minn. Stat. § 518.176, subd. 1 (2004). We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In re T.A.A., No. A04-1345 (Minn. 08/04/2005)
The district court terminated respondent T.A.A.'s parental rights to her four children based on findings that statutory grounds for termination exist, that termination is in the children's best interests, and that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite T.A.A. with her children. The court of appeals reversed on the ground the county failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification because the county did not offer T.A.A. chemical dependency treatment at an earlier time. We reverse.
Unublished
Dependent children
In re Welfare of the Children of J. K., No. A05-203 (Minn.App. 08/02/2005)
Appellant-mother challenges the termination of her parental rights, arguing that (1) the district court's findings that she failed to comply with the duties of the parent-child relationship, that she is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-child relationship, and that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family are not supported by the record; and (2) a transfer of permanent physical and legal custody to a relative, rather than termination of parental rights, is in the best interests of the children. We affirm.
In re Children of J. L. W., No. A05-20 (Minn.App. 08/02/2005)
On appeal, appellant-father argues that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights. Specifically, he argues that the district court erred by (1) erroneously considering his incarceration status in determining that he had abandoned his children; (2) determining he had refused to comply with his parental duties; (3) determining that he was palpably unfit to parent; (4) finding that he exposed a child to egregious harm; and (5) determining that the children were neglected and in foster care. Appellant further argues that the district court erred in concluding that the county had provided active efforts, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, to reunify the family. Because the district court had sufficient evidence to terminate appellant's parental rights and because the county's efforts to unify the family were futile, we affirm.
In re Welfare of the Child of S.M., No. A05-182 (Minn.App. 09/09/2005)
On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant mother argues (1) that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that at the time of trial she was unable to parent her child and (2) that the district court abused its discretion by admitting certain documents under the business-record exception to the hearsay rule and by taking judicial notice of certain other documents. Because the district court's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and because appellant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the district court's evidentiary rulings, we affirm.
In re M.M.F., No. A05-123 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
In this termination of parental rights proceeding, appellants challenge the district court's determination on four statutory grounds that they are unfit to be parents. Because we agree with the district court that one or more statutory grounds for termination exist through clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.
In re Welfare of the Children of R.H., No. A04-2310 (Minn.App. 08/23/2005)
On appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to their child, J.H., appellant-mother L.S. and appellant-father R.H. argue that (1) the termination order inadequately addresses J.H.'s best interests; (2) the district court erred in failing to determine J.H.'s preference or find that he was not of a suitable age to express a preference when J.H. was not represented by counsel; (3) the district court's findings regarding reasonable efforts are insufficient; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the termination of parental rights (TPR). Because the evidence is sufficient to support the district court's findings of fact and the court properly applied the law, we affirm.
In re Welfare of the Child of K.L., No. A05-185 (Minn.App. 08/16/2005)
Appellant-mother K.L. challenges the termination of her rights to her child D.L., arguing that the district court erred in concluding that she failed to overcome the statutory presumption that she is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent-and-child relationship. We affirm.
Family support
Roes v. Roes, No. A04-2041 (Minn.App. 08/23/2005)
In this appeal from judgment in a marital-dissolution proceeding, Marie Roes challenges the district court's decisions on parenting time, child support, spousal maintenance, property division, and attorneys' fees. George Roes, by notice of review, contests the court's method for determining child support and dividing personal property. The record supports the district court's findings on parenting time, child support, spousal maintenance, attorneys' fees, and the division of the property classified as marital, and we affirm those determinations. But the district court's findings do not adequately support the designation, as non-marital property, of an IRA, a life-insurance policy, and a variable annuity. We therefore reverse and remand for further findings on these issues.
Mackey v. Mackey, No. A04-2318 (Minn.App. 08/16/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's modification of respondent's spousal maintenance and child support obligations. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that respondent was not voluntarily underemployed, we affirm in part. Because it appears that the district court made a computational error in determining child support, we reverse in part and remand.
In re Paternity of B.M.H., No. A04-1620 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion to modify his child-support obligation. Because the district court's findings are supported by the record and appellant failed to satisfy the statutory criteria for modification, we affirm.
Zeller v. Larson, No. A04-2022 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation when his income was significantly decreased by a substantial change in circumstances that was not within his control and was not in bad faith. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to modify, we affirm.
Prom v. Prom, No. A04-2430 (Minn.App. 08/23/2005)
In this appeal from an order denying his motion to modify or terminate spousal maintenance, appellant husband argues that (1) there has been a change in circumstances warranting termination of spousal maintenance; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by considering his current wife's income and property when denying his motion to terminate spousal maintenance. We affirm.
Allen v. Thompson, No. A04-2225 (Minn.App. 08/30/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify the child support provided for in the dissolution judgment and the district court's award of attorney fees against him. The modification appellant sought would eliminate an agreed on increase in support. Because the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion, we reverse and remand.
Hamlin v. Mille Lacs County, No. A04-2043 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
Following trial in this action for damages against Mille Lacs County's child-support division, the district court found that the county was immune from civil liability under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 5 (2004), because the county employee whose actions resulted in the attachment of Wayne and Lorelee Hamlin's joint bank account had exercised due care and followed department procedure. In this appeal, Wayne Hamlin challenges the admissibility of three late-payment notices that were not included on the county's list of exhibits and also challenges the district court's findings on the county's immunity. Because the admission of the exhibits was neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudicial and because the record supports the district court's determination on due-care statutory immunity, we affirm.
Hottinger v. Wilmes, No. A04-2285 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
In this appeal from judgment establishing custody and setting child support, Kenneth Hottinger challenges the district court's rejection of joint physical custody and the imposition of a child-support obligation based on the statutory child-support guidelines. Because the district court properly applied the law, reasonably exercised its discretion, and relied on facts fully supported by the record, we affirm.
Milner v. Milner, No. A04-2153 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
In this pro se appeal from a judgment for maintenance arrearages and directing that a portion of future maintenance payments be withheld from appellant-husband's Social Security income, husband contends that (1) respondent-wife tried to kill him by giving him betaine hydrochloride pills daily; (2) the order for maintenance was caused by fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by wife and her attorney failing to declare all of her marital assets during trial; and (3) husband is entitled to a share of the proceeds from wife's sale of the home that she was awarded in the original dissolution judgment. We affirm.
Rehm v. Rehm, No. A04-2507 (Minn.App. 08/23/2005)
The district court granted respondent Gean F. Rehm's motion for an increase in maintenance. Appellant Eric S. Rehm challenges the amount of the increase arguing that several of the district court's findings are not supported by the record and that the district court misapplied the statutory factors on maintenance to determine the amount of the increase. We affirm.
Child custody; Visitation
Manke v. Manke, No. A05-371 (Minn.App. 08/30/2005)
In this dissolution proceeding, appellant challenges the district court's amended judgment awarding sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties' child to respondent and temporary spousal maintenance to appellant for a six-month term. Appellant argues that (1) the record does not support several of the district court's custody findings and that the district court thereby abused its discretion by failing to establish a joint-custody arrangement, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by limiting her spousal maintenance to a six-month term. Because we conclude that the district court did not err in its custody findings nor abuse its discretion by awarding respondent sole legal and sole physical custody or by awarding appellant temporary spousal maintenance, we affirm.
Sackett v. Marie, No. A04-1685 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
In a custody proceeding under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 257C, the district court found that clear and convincing evidence established Kathleen Sackett as an interested third party and that it was in the child's best interests for Sackett to have sole legal and physical custody subject to reasonable parenting time for the mother, Melissa Ehrnreiter. Ehrnreiter appeals the custody determination and the district court's order denying her motion for amended findings or a new trial. Because the district court properly applied the law, reasonably exercised its discretion, and relied on facts supported by the record, we affirm.
Martin v. Martin, No. A04-1977 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
Pro se appellant father argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion: (1) for an order directing respondent mother to enroll the parties' minor child in private school and to limit the school absenteeism of the child; (2) for an order holding respondent in contempt of court; and (3) to reopen judgments entered in this matter. Appellant also sought to remove for prejudice the district court judge assigned to this case, and he appeals from the denial of his notice to remove. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Hallerman v. Hallerman, No. A05-612 (Minn.App. 08/30/2005)
Appellant Jennifer Ann Hallerman challenges the district court's order establishing a parenting schedule for the parties' minor child, N.H. Appellant contends the district court erred by (1) adopting respondent's proposed findings of fact instead of making independent findings; (2) failing to make findings regarding the best interests of the child in determining the primary residence of N.H.; and (3) relying on the guardian ad litem's recommendation in determining the primary residence of N.H. We affirm.
Blooflat v. Blooflat, No. A05-493 (Minn.App. 08/30/2005)
Bennett Blooflat appeals from a district court order that denied, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion to modify Dorene Blooflat's primary physical custody of their three children and to grant him sole physical custody. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the affidavit in support of the motion, taken as true, failed to establish a prima facie case for modification, we affirm the summary denial of the motion.
In re Guardianship of T. E., No. A04-2214 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
Following the death of their mother, who was their custodial parent, the district court awarded custody of two sisters to an interested third party, the sisters' stepfather, rather than to their biological father. The district court found that the biological father is a fit parent, but the court awarded custody to the stepfather based on the strong public policy of keeping minor siblings together, in this case the two sisters and their two half-sisters; the grieving process surrounding the loss of their mother; and the lack of a relationship between the sisters and their biological father. The biological father argues that the district court (1) erred in awarding custody to the interested third party rather than to him; (2) erred in deciding custody in a guardianship proceeding venued in a county other than the county where the sisters were residing with him; and (3) deprived him of his constitutional right to have custody of his children. We affirm.
Allocation of Property
Caron v. Caron, No. A04-2461 (Minn.App. 09/06/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's order following her motion to amend the judgment and decree. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) improperly calculating the value of the debt that the parties owe appellant's mother; (2) failing to make findings on whether other money given to the parties by appellant's parents constituted gifts or loans; (3) improperly valuing the homestead; (4) crediting respondent for making the March 2004 house payment when the issue was not properly before the district court; (5) unjustly and unequally dividing the property; (6) failing to order child support retroactive to the date of the trial; (7) unlawfully making appellant's right to the homestead and temporary maintenance contingent on her not cohabiting with a non-family member; and (8) ignoring the custody evaluator's recommendations when setting parenting time. [¶] Because the value the district court assigned to the homestead falls within the reasonable range of estimates in the record, we affirm on that issue. Because the district court's decisions on child support and parenting time were not an abuse of discretion, we affirm those issues. But because the district court improperly calculated the interest owed on the debt that the parties owe to appellant's mother, we reverse and remand that issue. We also reverse and remand the district court's decision regarding respondent's payment of the March 2004 house payment and its effect on respondent's lien on the homestead because appellant had no meaningful opportunity to respond to an issue not properly before the court. Because the district court erred by ordering that appellant would automatically lose her right to the homestead and maintenance if she cohabits with a non-family member, we reverse and remand those issues. Finally, we reverse and remand the property division to the district court for redetermination following resolution of the remanded issues.
Schmid v. Schmid, No. A04-2386 (Minn.App. 08/09/2005)
On appeal from the district court's order awarding respondent a $17,726 credit for reducing the mortgage principal on the parties' homestead, appellant claims that the district court erred by denying her claim for equitable relief because respondent had already been given credit for reducing the mortgage principal by having his child-support obligation reduced. We affirm.
Minnesota Family Law Case Summaries
June 26 - July 30, 2005
Click on case name to access full text
Published
In re A.S., No. A04-2344 (Minn.App. 07/05/2005)
In this consolidated appeal, a mother and father challenge the termination of their parental rights, asserting that the district court erred by applying the presumption of palpable unfitness in Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2004), to each of them. Mother and father also argue that the record as a whole rebuts any presumption of unfitness. Father also challenges venue in Koochiching County. Because (1) the district court did not apply the presumption of palpable unfitness to father and did not err in applying the presumption to mother; (2) the record does not rebut the presumption of mother's unfitness; (3) the record is sufficient to support the termination of parental rights as to father; and (4) venue was appropriate, we affirm.
Schallinger v. Schallinger, No. A04-2196 (Minn.App. 07/12/2005)
On appeal from marital-dissolution proceedings, appellant challenges the district court's order (1) awarding joint physical custody; (2) denying maintenance; (3) calculating child support; (4) paying off respondent's portion of the property division by invading appellant's retirement account; (5) adopting respondent's proposed judgment verbatim; and (6) denying attorney fees. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in its application of the law, we affirm.
Unublished
Dependent children
In re Welfare of the Child of M.B.Y., No. A04-2231 (Minn.App. 07/05/2005)
In this consolidated appeal from a termination of parental rights, appellant parents argue that the district court erred by making conclusory findings that are not supported by the record and by concluding that the best interests of the child support the termination of appellants' parental rights. Because we find that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the district court's findings and that the findings do not adequately support the district court's decision to terminate appellants' parental rights, we reverse.
In re Children of: A.L., No. A04-2416 (Minn.App. 07/19/2005)
On appeal from the termination of his parental rights, appellant argues that (a) the district court's decision relied on inadmissible evidence, thereby depriving him of a fair trial, (b) the record does not provide substantial support for the district court's termination order on statutory grounds and under a best interests analysis, and (c) the district court erred by adopting the Hennepin County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) proposed findings verbatim. We affirm.
Family support
Janssen v. Janssen, No. A04-1509 (Minn.App. 07/05/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's order reinstating appellant's child support responsibilities under a prior divorce decree based on his imputed income as an over-the-road truck driver. Because the district court abused its discretion by finding that appellant was underemployed, and because the duration of appellant's child support responsibilities is contrary to Minnesota law, we reverse and remand.
Leppala v. Leppala, No. A05-59 (Minn.App. 07/19/2005)
In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for spousal maintenance. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion and awarded respondent $1,000 in attorney fees, we affirm.
Schaefer v. Schaefer, No. A04-2297 (Minn.App. 07/12/2005)
In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant-mother challenges the October 2004 order of a child support magistrate (CSM), which granted, in part, appellant's motion to increase respondent's child-support obligation; but denied her requests to make the increase retroactive to May 2004, include respondent-husband's excess employment as a portion of his net income, require respondent to pay for one-half of the children's medical insurance, and award attorney fees. Because the issue of respondent's excess employment had already been litigated in 2000, and the circumstances of his excess employment had not changed, we conclude that the CSM correctly determined in 2004 that the issue was precluded from further litigation. Since the CSM did not abuse her discretion in her determination of the other issues, we affirm.
Ferris v. Ferris, No. A04-1644 (Minn.App. 07/19/2005)
In this dissolution matter, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in making certain findings of fact, in awarding maintenance, and in setting child support. Because we see no abuse of discretion or erroneous application of the law, we affirm.
Mueller v. Mueller, No. A04-1596 (Minn.App. 06/28/2005)
In this marriage-dissolution action, appellant-husband Timothy P. Mueller challenges the district court's award of permanent spousal maintenance to respondent-wife Anita L. Mueller, the court's determination that certain debts were marital, and the court's valuation of a cabin property acquired by the parties during the marriage. By notice of review, wife challenges the district court's determination that the cabin property is marital property; the court's allocation of marital debt, and the court's property division. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Hall v. Hall, No. A04-2055 (Minn.App. 06/28/2005)
In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant challenges the district court's denial of her motion to increase respondent's child-support obligation, arguing that escrowed funds deducted from respondent's paycheck for vacation and sick time should be included in the calculation of net income. Because the escrowed funds are not available to respondent as income, we affirm.
McNamara-Ehlen v. Ehlen, No. A04-1839 (Minn.App. 07/19/2005)
Appellant Sharon McNamara-Ehlen challenges the district court's order granting respondent James Ehlen's motion for a downward modification of his spousal-maintenance obligation. Appellant argues that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and that the district court erred by not including respondent's liquid assets when determining his ability to pay spousal maintenance. Because the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous, we need not reach appellant's second argument. We affirm.
Child custody; Visitation
Lewis-Miller v. Ross, No. A04-2224 (Minn.App. 07/12/2005)
Appellant Gail Lewis-Miller argues the district court misinterpreted Minn. Stat. § 257C.03 (2004) in dismissing her petition for custody of her nephews without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand.
In re Marriage of Geske, No. A04-1773 (Minn.App. 07/26/2005)
In this ongoing parenting dispute following a marital dissolution, Jeffrey Marcolina appeals from four district court orders. He challenges issues relating generally to parenting time and specifically to the district court's refusal to find Jean Geske in contempt, denial of a request for recusal, and imposition of attorneys' fees. Because the district court did not misapply the law, abuse its discretion, or make a decision against logic and the facts of record, we affirm.
Allocation of Property
Brown v. Brown, No. A04-2006 (Minn.App. 07/05/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's dissolution judgment alleging improper division of the parties' property and departure from child support guidelines. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the parties' property and deferring the effective date of the child support obligation, we affirm.
Greco v. Albrecht-Greco, No. A04-1580 (Minn.App. 06/28/2005)
In this appeal from a marital-dissolution judgment, wife argues that the district court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay husband (1) $24,964 for credit-card debts that were paid with proceeds from a mortgage loan obtained during the marriage; and (2) $25,340.57 for interest, late fees, and taxes incurred because of delinquent mortgage payments. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Chevalier v. French, No. A04-2198 (Minn.App. 06/28/2005)
In this pension-division dispute arising in a dissolution case, appellant-husband argues that the district court erred when it declined to amend the dissolution decree's division of his pension because its value was reduced as a result of a corporate merger. Respondent-wife moves for attorney fees incurred in defense of this appeal. We affirm and deny the motion.
Minnesota Family Law Case Summaries
May 22 - June 15, 2005
Click on case name to access full text
Published
Maschoff v. Leiding, No. A04-1757 (Minn.App. 05/31/2005)
The district court denied appellant Pamela Maschoff's motion to modify a child support order, ruling that the relevant issues had been previously litigated. Because the record does not show that the relevant issues had been previously litigated, and the district court was not precluded from considering appellant's motion, we reverse and remand.
In re Marriage of Rettke, No. A04-1507 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Decedent husband started a dissolution action. The parties signed a mediated property settlement agreement. It did not become part of a marital termination agreement (MTA) to present to the court. The husband signed it, but the wife never did. Then the husband died before the dissolution action went to court. Before a personal representative was appointed, respondent wife moved in district court to enforce the "property settlement" agreement. The district court took jurisdiction and entered a judgment purporting to enforce the mediated property settlement. Later, after appointment, appellant, the personal representative for the estate, moved to vacate the judgment. The court denied the motion. Appellant moves to reverse and remand, arguing that (1) the district court should not have exercised jurisdiction because the husband had died and the personal representative had not yet been appointed and (2) the estate and those with an interest in the property were denied due process because they did not receive notice of the hearing on the motion to enforce the property settlement. Respondent contends that the order denying the motion to vacate is not appealable. We reverse.
Unublished
Dependent children
In re Welfare of the Children of S.L.J., No. A04-2302 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant R.E.G. challenges the termination of his parental rights to his children, L.E.G. and J.S.G., arguing that the district court erred by identifying five statutory bases for termination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1 (2004). Because the district court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the termination of appellant's parental rights and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
In re Welfare of the Children of A. T., No. A04-1614 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Appellants A.T. and F.T. appeal from an order terminating their parental rights as to their three adopted children. They argue that there was insufficient evidence to terminate their parental rights and that the juvenile court abused its discretion in the admission of evidence. Finally, A.T. and F.T. argue that the verbatim adoption of respondent-HSD's proposed findings of fact was error. Because the evidentiary issues have been waived and the evidence was sufficient to terminate their parental rights, we affirm.
In re K.M.B., No. A04-2270 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellants K.M.B. and T.R.B. are the parents of M.E.B., born January 5, 2003, and M.B., born February 9, 2004. By order issued October 26, 2004, the district court terminated appellants' parental rights, based on findings of egregious harm to M.B. while in his parents' care and of M.E.B.'s status as the sibling of a child who has experienced egregious harm. Appellants argue that the district court erred because substantial evidence was not presented to show that either parent was responsible for the harm and because termination was not in the children's best interests. [¶] Because the district court's termination order is supported by clear and convincing evidence and because termination is in the children's best interests, we affirm.
Kneen v. Minnesota Dep't of Human Services, No. A04-1516 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant challenges an order of the commissioner of human services affirming the administrative-appeal referee's determination that appellant maltreated children by failing to protect them from sexual abuse when he was reasonably able to do so. Appellant argues that the commissioner's decision was biased, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidence, based on false information, and affected by procedural error and alleges that the agency failed to disclose relevant evidence and that new evidence is now available. Because (1) there is substantial evidence supporting the commissioner's decision; (2) appellant does not demonstrate that the decision was biased, arbitrary, capricious, or affected by procedural error; and (3) appellant has raised on appeal an issue that was not considered by the district court, we affirm.
Family support
Albert v. Jones-Albert, No. A04-1352 (Minn.App. 06/10/2005)
In this marital-dissolution proceeding, pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and otherwise abused its discretion by (1) determining that respondent was the primary parent and awarding her sole custody of the children; (2) miscalculating its child-support award and imputing income to appellant; (3) denying spousal maintenance to appellant; and (4) inequitably distributing the marital property. Because we find that the district court did not lack jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
State v. Castillo, No. A04-1528 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Appellant challenges the child support magistrate's determination of child support for a child born and residing in Mexico. On the limited record before us, we conclude that the child support magistrate had subject-matter jurisdiction to establish child support, but we remand for a determination of whether a prior or simultaneous proceeding in Mexico affects the exercise of that jurisdiction.
Kleine v. Kleine, No. A04-1664 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Following emancipation of the second of the parties' three children, a child support magistrate used the Hortis/Valento formula to calculate child support for the remaining minor child. Respondent sought review of the magistrate's order and the district court reversed, concluding that support was to be determined by applying the support guidelines, thus recognizing the split-custody and child-support arrangement that had been observed by the parties at all times after the dissolution of their marriage. Because the district court properly determined that child support was to be calculated according to support guidelines and not according to the Hortis/Valento formula, we affirm.
Gillet v. Gillet, No. A04-1363 (Minn.App. 05/31/2005)
In this appeal from postjudgment orders imposing a child-support obligation, William Gillet challenges the district court's determination that Jane Gillet is a joint physical custodian of their two children and also challenges the application of the Hortis/Valento formula. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the physical custody is joint, but it abused its discretion in computing William Gillet's support obligation and in making that obligation retroactive. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Johnson v. Johnson, No. A04-1953 (Minn.App. 05/31/2005)
Both parties to this dissolution action appeal and argue that the district court abused its discretion in dividing property and awarding attorney fees. Appellant claims further abuses of discretion in awarding sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children to respondent, in imputing income to appellant, and in awarding respondent a judgment for arrearages of child support from September 2002 until August 2004. Respondent claims an abuse of discretion in compensating appellant for sums respondent removed from the parties' joint accounts. Because the only aspect of the district court's ruling that is not supported by the record is the award of child-support arrearages from February 2004 until August 2004, we affirm with the modification of the judgment for arrearages.
Pattinson v. Pattinson, No. A04-1814 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
In this post-dissolution proceeding, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by reducing to $0 respondent's maintenance obligation. Because the district court failed to make adequate findings, we reverse and remand. We also deny appellant's motion to strike.
Kintner-Dee v. Dee, No. A04-1452 (Minn.App. 05/31/2005)
In this appeal from judgment in a marital-dissolution proceeding, Milne Kintner-Dee challenges the district court's refusal to order spousal maintenance and attorneys' fees. Kintner-Dee also challenges the provision in the judgment that reserves jurisdiction on spousal maintenance for Arthur Dee. Because the district court acted within its discretion in not ordering spousal maintenance or attorneys' fees for Kintner-Dee, we affirm that part of the judgment. But because the record does not demonstrate that Dee sought spousal maintenance before the contested hearing or adequately demonstrated a basis for reserving the issue of maintenance, we reverse the reservation provision.
Ramsey County v. Korbel, No. A04-1193 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
On appeal in this child-support dispute, appellant-father argues that because the record does not support the Child Support Magistrate's (CSM) findings as to appellant's ability to work, his net income, or his ownership of a business, the CSM's child support determination is against all logic and facts in the record. We reverse and remand for recomputation of appellant-father's child support obligation.
Kozel v. Kozel, No. A04-1714 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's affirmance of a child-support magistrate's order denying a motion to modify her child-support obligation, arguing that the district court (1) applied the incorrect standard of review by failing to review the magistrate's order de novo and (2) abused its discretion by determining that appellant was voluntarily underemployed and imputing income based on appellant's former salary without analyzing her present estimated earning ability. Because the district court conducted a de novo review and did not clearly err by finding that appellant was voluntarily underemployed, we affirm in part. But because the district court failed to properly calculate appellant's support obligation based on a determination of imputed income under Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2004), we reverse in part and remand.
Holstad v. Calderon, No. A04-1720 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant Jodi Lynn Holstad and respondent John Paul Calderon have one child, who was born in 1994 and diagnosed with autism in early 1998. In December 1998, the parties stipulated to the establishment of a trust, which would provide ongoing child support of $1,300 per month to appellant. The parties further agreed that respondent would continue to provide medical and dental insurance for the child, and that each party would be responsible for one-half of any uninsured or unreimbursed medical or dental expenses. [¶] The parties have had numerous disputes regarding these unreimbursed medical expenses. In this appeal, the parties challenge the district court's denial of their cross-motions for review of an order issued by a child support magistrate (CSM). The CSM's order denied appellant's request to require respondent to pay a greater percentage of the unreimbursed medical expenses, required respondent to pay $15,103 to appellant as his portion of unreimbursed expenses through December 2003, awarded appellant $500 in attorney fees, and denied the remainder of the parties' motions. [¶] Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the CSM's order, we affirm.
Kasongo v. Tshefu, No. A04-1918 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
This is an appeal of a court order reinstating an original support order after temporary suspension due to medical disability. Appellant-mother Ambaye Tina Tshefu argues the district court erred in (1) "setting" her child support obligation at $491 per month, (2) directing her to pay 50% of unreimbursed medical and dental expenses, (3) denying her motion for need based attorney fees, and (4) denying her request to submit new evidence. We affirm.
Rock-Sivak v. Sivak, No. A04-1674 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
In this appeal from the denial of a motion to modify child-support and parenting-time provisions in a marital-dissolution judgment, Joseph Sivak challenges the district court's failure to make findings on his current income and to address his motion on modification of parenting time. The order establishes that the district court addressed the parenting-time modification and directed Sivak's attorney to submit a proposed order. The order does not, however, contain findings on Sivak's income, and we reverse and remand for additional findings on the motion to modify child support.
Tyacke v. Gundstrom, No. A04-2131 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to terminate his spousal maintenance obligation, arguing that the district court made inadequate findings of fact and clearly erroneous conclusions of law, and abused its discretion in denying his motion. Because the district court did not make findings of fact, we are unable to effectively review appellant's ability to continue his spousal maintenance obligation, and we therefore remand for findings.
Dema v. Dema, No. A04-2079 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Appellant Valdemia Dema challenges the district court's order denying her motion for an increase in child support and child care contribution and awarding attorney fees to respondent Keh Dema. Because the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and its decision is not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Rothstein v. Rothstein, No. A04-1337 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant Morry Newell Rothstein moved for a reduction in or termination of his maintenance obligation to respondent Olivia Adrienne Rothstein, and respondent moved for an increase in maintenance. The district court increased appellant's obligation, and this appeal followed. Appellant asserts that the district court failed to consider respondent's full financial resources, overstated her expenses, understated her earning capacity, and overstated his ability to pay. Appellant also challenges the award of attorney fees to respondent. Because the district court failed to make findings regarding appellant's income and expenses, we are unable to effectively review appellant's ability to pay the maintenance or attorney fees awarded; therefore, we remand for additional findings.
Child custody; Visitation
Bongo v. Norris, No. A04-1471 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant Michael Bongo (father) asserts that the district court abused its discretion by modifying physical custody of the parties' teenage son to joint custody, rather than granting sole custody to him. Father also alleges that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award child support pursuant to the guidelines; by granting respondent Sharon Norris (mother) the right to claim the tax exemption for the child in alternate years; by ordering father to partially pay mother's attorney fees, in addition to imposing a civil penalty for willful interference with mother's parenting time; and by ordering father to post a bond to secure his compliance with mother's custodial rights. We modify the order to provide that the issue of child support is reserved and otherwise affirm.
Dyrhaug v. Dyrhaug, No. A04-1702 (Minn.App. 06/21/2005)
Kevin Dyrhaug appeals from district court orders that rejected his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, granted Pamela Paige's motion to change their children's residence from Minnesota to Colorado, and denied Dyrhaug's remaining motions to find Paige in contempt, modify custody, and order attorneys' fees. Because the district court applied the proper legal standards and did not abuse its discretion in determining the motions, we affirm.
Rick v. Rick, No. A04-1670 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to modify custody of the parties' children without an evidentiary hearing. The district court determined that appellant failed to make a prima facie case that (1) the children are endangered in their present environment or (2) the benefits of custody modification outweigh the harm. Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on his motion because his affidavits establish prima facie evidence of these elements. We reverse and remand.
Olinger v. Beckman, No. A04-2363 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant-mother moved to amend the dissolution judgment to change the primary physical residence of the parties' children. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, ruling that appellant had not made a prima facie case of either endangerment or changed circumstances. Appellant argues that, because this matter is governed by the best-interest-of-the-child standard--as recited in the stipulated portion of the judgment addressing custody and parenting time--the district erred when it applied the endangerment standard. Alternatively, appellant argues that even under the endangerment standard, an evidentiary hearing was required. We affirm.
Stanley v. Moening, No. A04-1667 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellant Jennifer Ann Stanley challenges the district court's decision to grant respondent Brooks Joseph Moening joint physical custody of the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old son, C.J.M., arguing that the district court erred by (1) making a joint physical custody award that is contrary to established Minnesota law; (2) adopting a parenting time schedule that does not reflect the child's best interests; and (3) denying appellant's motion to reopen the record. We affirm.
Kenline v. Kenline, No. A04-2410 (Minn.App. 06/21/2005)
Appellant Jill Kenline challenges an order issued by a referee and confirmed by the district court that denies her motion to remove her three children to Florida. She argues that the district court erred by placing the burden on her to establish that removal was in the children's best interests and by reopening the custody provisions of the dissolution judgment for review in further proceedings.
J.M.H. v. Julious Douglas Heath, No. A04-1988 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
On appeal in this custody dispute, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in denying her a continuance; (2) she should have been granted an evidentiary hearing for newly discovered evidence; (3) the district court assigned too much weight to information in the county's custody report; (4) the record does not support the district court's best-interests findings; (5) some of the evidence considered by the district court was submitted in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.507 (2004) regarding false allegations of abuse; and (6) the custody award fails to consider a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 1 (2004), which prohibits depriving a person of parental or custodial rights. Because the denial of a continuance and another evidentiary hearing was within the district court's discretion and because the record supports the award of physical custody to respondent, we affirm.
Allocation of Property
Johnson v. Johnson, No. A04-1577 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's distribution of property in a marital dissolution action arguing that (1) the property division inequitably favors respondent and is unsupported by the record; (2) the award deprived appellant of her property without due process of law; and (3) the property division should be vacated because respondent's failure to provide adequate information constituted fraud on the court. Because the property distribution was not inequitable, was reasonably supported by the record, and did not violate due process, and because there is no evidence of fraud by respondent, we affirm.
Attorney's fees
Beaudet v. Ponto, No. A04-2107 (Minn.App. 06/14/2005)
Appellant Nancy Ponto brought this attorney lien action against her former client, respondent Susanne Marie Beaudet, who is a party to a dismissed dissolution proceeding, and against respondent David Roy Beaudet. On appeal, she argues that (1) she has a right to an attorney lien on the property of her former client under Minn. Stat. § 481.13 (2004); and (2) the district court's denial of her request for a lien deprived her of the right to a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees. Because the district court misapplied the law and because the evidence does not support the district court's findings, we reverse and remand.
Professional Negligence
Azbill v. Grande, No. A04-2139 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondents, arguing that the district court erred by holding that she could not show causation as to damages for her underlying claims of legal malpractice, civil conspiracy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by denying her motion to amend her complaint. Because we conclude that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment and denying appellant's motion to amend, we affirm.
Domestic Violence
State v. Schenck, No. A04-1557 (Minn.App. 05/24/2005)
Appellant Steven Schenck challenges his conviction of domestic assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(1) (2002), arguing that the district court erred by holding that the defense of reasonable use of force to correct or discipline a child under Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(6) (2002) was inapplicable. Because we conclude that the statutory defense was not applicable and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.
State v. Biermaier, No. A04-922 (Minn.App. 06/07/2005)
Appellant challenges his conviction of one count of fifth-degree domestic assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(1) (2002). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury that inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the defendant's presumption of innocence and that a finding of guilt based on circumstantial evidence must exclude all other rational hypotheses of innocence, and because the record evidence is sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict, we affirm.
Minnesota Family Law Case Summaries
April 17 - May 21, 2005
Click on case name to access full text
Published
Eustathiades v. Bowman, No. A04-1526 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
Appellant-father challenges the district court's order denying his motion for the establishment of respondent-mother's child-support obligation. Appellant claims that the district court erred by requiring a substantial change in circumstances under the modification standard, rather than treating appellant's request as an initial establishment of child support. We reverse and remand.
Radke v. County of Freeborn, 694 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 04/21/2005)
The issue in this case is whether a negligence cause of action can be maintained for the intervention and investigation of reports of suspected child abuse and neglect as required under the Child Abuse Reporting Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.556 (2004) (CARA). Appellant Matthew Radke (appellant), as trustee for the next of kin of his son Makaio Lynn Radke (Makaio), brought a wrongful death action against Freeborn County and two county child protection workers alleging that they negligently investigated reports of suspected abuse of Makaio. The district court granted respondents' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the "legislature did not expressly or impliedly create a civil cause of action under the Child Abuse Reporting Act." Radke v. County of Freeborn, 676 N.W.2d 295, 301 (Minn. App. 2004). We hold that a cause of action can be maintained for negligence in the investigation and intervention of child abuse and neglect reports as required under CARA. We therefore reverse and remand.
State v. Courtney, No. A03-790 (Minn. 05/12/2005)
Respondent Antoine Edward Eugene Courtney was charged with second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2004), terroristic threats in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 (2004), two counts of domestic assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(1) and (2) (2004), and fourth-degree criminal damage to property in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 3 (2004), for assaulting his girlfriend S.B. in September 2001. As the result of a separate incident that took place in November 2001 in which he allegedly pointed a handgun at a police officer, Courtney was charged with second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.667 (2004), and possession of marijuana in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.027, subd. 4(a), and 152.02, subd. 2(3) (2004). The marijuana charge was ultimately dismissed. The charges arising from the two incidents were tried separately and in each case the jury found Courtney guilty as charged. [¶] In a consolidated appeal, the court of appeals reversed both convictions and remanded, holding, among other things, that: (1) the admission of a videotaped interview by S.B.'s six-year-old daughter, S.G., in the domestic assault case violated Courtney's right to confrontation; (2) the error was not harmless; (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Courtney's motion for a continuance in the domestic assault case to allow his new attorney more time to prepare for the trial; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a portion of the complaint from the domestic assault case in the officer assault trial. State v. Courtney, 682 N.W.2d 185, 205 (Minn. App. 2004). The state appealed. We granted limited review on the above issues.
Stageberg v. Stageberg, No. A04-1230 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
On appeal from a judgment dissolving the marriage of appellant-wife Jane Stageberg and respondent-husband Mark Stageberg, husband challenges the determination that certain contingency fees his law practice was earning when the marriage was dissolved should be treated as marital property. Wife argues that the district court undervalued these interests. In addition, wife argues that the district court abused its discretion by treating her non-marital interest in certain property as marital, and she moves to strike portions of husband's brief and appendix. Husband argues that the record does not support the determination that wife has a non-marital interest in the home and that the district court overvalued the parties' golf-club membership. We reverse the district court's valuation of the marital interest in the contingent fees and the treatment of wife's non-marital interest in the property distribution and remand for revaluation of the contingency fees and any necessary adjustment of the property distribution. We otherwise affirm the district court and grant wife's motion to strike.
Unublished
Dependent children
In re Welfare of A.M.S., No. A04-2020 (Minn.App. 05/10/2005)
Appellant A.M.S. challenges termination of her parental rights to four-year-old T.R.K., arguing that the district court erred in selecting termination of parental rights over transfer of legal custody as the disposition. Because the district court's finding that termination of parental rights is in T.R.K.'s best interests is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.
Family support
Olson v. Olson, No. A04-1148 (Minn.App. 04/19/2005)
Appellant challenges (1) the district court's determination of the amount of monthly spousal maintenance awarded to respondent, (2) the district court's order denying appellant's motion to modify spousal maintenance, and (3) the district court's award of attorney fees to respondent. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in determining spousal maintenance because it placed on appellant all of the risk of not being able to maintain the parties' marital standard of living. We find no abuse of the district court's discretion in the award of attorney fees to respondent in the dissolution action, but we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to respondent for responding to appellant's motion for modification. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Simon v. Simon, No. A04-1371 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
Appellant Lynn Michael Simon challenges the trial court's award of permanent spousal maintenance to respondent Judith Ann Simon, f/k/a Judith Ann Charlson. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings, made findings of fact not supported by the record, and abused its discretion by awarding permanent maintenance. Because we conclude that the trial court's findings were adequate and supported by the record, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding permanent maintenance, we affirm.
Hollenhorst v. Hollenhorst, No. A04-1712 (Minn.App. 04/26/2005)
Appellant challenges the modification of his child-support obligation, arguing that the district court (1) abused its discretion by ruling that appellant had not shown good cause for a hearing on review of the child-support magistrate's ruling, (2) erred by ruling that appellant's loan proceeds were income for support purposes, and (3) overstated his income by failing to properly apply the statutory deductions. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's request for a hearing or by calculating appellant's income for child-support purposes, we affirm.
Walbon v. Walbon, No. A04-1523 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's dissolution judgment, arguing the court erred (1) in imputing income to him for purposes of determining spousal maintenance; (2) in its valuation of the family business; (3) in sanctioning him for selling off assets in violation of the court's restraining order; and (4) in awarding respondent attorney fees. We reverse the district court's award of attorney fees and remand for reconsideration of whether such an award is appropriate and if so, the proper amount of such an award, but we affirm the district court's decision in all other respects.
Stimmler v. Stimmler, No. A04-1425 (Minn.App. 04/26/2005)
Appellant Dawn Richelle Stimmler challenges denial of maintenance, property distribution, provision for children's health insurance, and an award of attorney fees in this dissolution action. Because the judgment adequately addressed provision of health insurance for the children and there was no abuse of discretion in the award of attorney fees, we affirm those provisions. Because the findings concerning appellant's income are inadequate to allow meaningful review of the maintenance issue and, without clarification, the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the homestead is inequitable, we remand those issues.
Demaris v. Demaris, No. A04-1627 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
In this child-support dispute, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by not requiring respondent-father to contribute to the child-care and health-insurance costs for the parties' children and in not making the support modification retroactive to either the date she served her motion to modify support or the date father began his current employment. We reverse and remand.
Lee v. Lee, No. A04-1070 (Minn.App. 04/26/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's decision ordering retroactive modification of spousal maintenance. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by retroactively modifying the maintenance when (1) its finding of misrepresentation was inadequate and not supported by the record and (2) the modification was based on a misreading of a previous court order. Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his equitable-laches defense. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Safar v. Safar, No. A04-974 (Minn.App. 04/19/2005)
In this marital-dissolution proceeding, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent excessive permanent spousal maintenance, by unjustly and inequitably distributing certain marital assets, and by awarding specific assets rather than the stipulated value of those assets. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Child custody; Visitation
Abarca v. MacPhee, No. A04-1584 (Minn.App. 04/26/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's award of sole physical and legal custody of the parties' daughter to respondent. Because there is adequate evidence to support the district court's finding that an award of the child to the respondent is in the child's best interests and because there is adequate evidence to support the findings that there might be conflicts between the parents in decision making concerning the child and that giving sole custody to the mother would not be detrimental to the child, we affirm.
Janssen v. Janssen, No. A04-1884 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
Appellant Kristin Janssen challenges the district court's order denying her motion for modification of custody without holding an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that she failed to establish a significant change in circumstances or that the children's emotional well-being is endangered by the existing joint-custody arrangement. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case for modification, we affirm.
McMahon v. McMahon, No. A04-1421 (Minn.App. 04/19/2005)
Appellant challenges the order of the district court granting the motion of respondent to move the residence of the minor children and alter the visitation schedule accordingly, and denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the motion of appellant to modify physical custody. Because the district court failed to adequately address certain assertions of appellant and failed to demonstrate that those assertions were considered as true in determining whether a prima facie showing had been made that moving the residence of the minor children would not be in their best interests and would endanger their health and well-being, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Allocation of Property
Rysdahl v. Rysdahl, No. A04-1253 (Minn.App. 05/10/2005)
In this dissolution proceeding, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in its division of the marital property and its award of spousal maintenance to respondent. Respondent also seeks review, asserting that the amount of spousal maintenance is inadequate and that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the parties joint physical custody of their minor children. Because the district court's findings of fact are supported by the record and the district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion or misapply the law, we affirm.
Sison v. Favis, No. A04-1228 (Minn.App. 05/03/2005)
In this appeal from a dissolution decree, appellant challenges the district court's determination of marital property. We affirm.
Karwoski v. Karwoski, No. A04-1234 (Minn.App. 04/26/2005)
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her motion seeking clarification of a buy-out provision in the parties' dissolution judgment. Appellant argues that the district court erred when it concluded that (1) the term "buy out" means physical tender of the dollar amount, and not simply notice; and (2) appellant did not establish that tendering actual payment to respondent would have been "futile" or "an idle ceremony." Because the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion, we affirm.
Domestic Violence
Carter-Wyman v. Wyman, No. A04-1042 (Minn.App. 04/19/2005)
This is an appeal from the issuance of a harassment restraining order. Appellant argues that the record does not support the district court's finding that appellant harassed respondent, that the district court's findings do not adequately support its order, and that the district court violated appellant's due-process rights by admitting evidence of events that happened after respondent filed her petition for relief. Because we find no error, we affirm.
Home Page --
Products --
Order Now --
Download Issue --
Contact Us